Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,549 answers , 19,357 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
410 active unimported users
More ...

A naive question on the $U(1)$ gauge transformation of electromagnetic field?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
223 views

For simplicity, in the following we set the electric charge $e=1$ and consider a lattice spinless free electron system in an external static magnetic field $\mathbf{B}=\nabla\times\mathbf{A}$ described by the Hamiltonian $H=\sum_{ij}t_{ij}c_i^\dagger c_j$, where $t_{ij}=\left | t_{ij} \right |e^{iA_{ij}}$ with the corresponding lattice gauge-field $A_{ij}$. As we know the transformation $\mathbf{A}\rightarrow \mathbf{A}+\nabla\theta$ does not change the physical magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, and the induced transformation in Hamiltonian reads $$H\rightarrow H'=\sum_{ij}t_{ij}'c_i^\dagger c_j$$ with $t_{ij}'=e^{i\theta_i}t_{ij}e^{-i\theta_j}$. Now my confusion point is:

Do these two Hamiltonians $H$ and $H'$ describe the same physics? Or do they describe some same quantum states? Or what common physical properties do they share?

I just know $H$ and $H'$ have the same spectrum, thank you very much.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
asked Oct 8, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Kai Li (975 points) [ no revision ]
If you do the transformation $c_i^{(\dagger)}\to e^{-(+)i\theta_i}c_i^{(\dagger)}$, you see that $H'\to H$, and the model is indeed gauge invariant. The physics is thus the same.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Adam
@ Adam Yes,you're right. But why we do this transformation? Can it be deduced from the underlying microscopic model or it's just the requirement for gauge invariant to describe the same physics?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
In the underlying model, it corresponds to the transformation $A_i(x)\to A_i(x)+\partial_i \theta(x)$ and $\hat\psi(x)\to e^{i\theta(x)}\hat\psi(x)$ (with maybe some minus signs) in the microscopic Hamiltonian. Or if you take your lattice Hamiltonian as "fundamental" (as in lattice QCD), you can show that it reproduces the usual continuous Hamiltonian in the limit of vanishing lattice spacing. So maybe you are asking what does the U(1) gauge transformation means in quantum mechanics ?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Adam
A system is not only determined by its Hamiltonian, but also by its Hilbert space. U(1) gauge theory can come from constraint of your Hilbert space.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Shenghan Jiang
@ Shenghan Jiang Thanks for your comment. But what is the constraint of Hilbert space in this example of my question(QHE system)?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
Remarks: $e^{i\theta _i \hat{n}_i}c_j^\dagger e^{-i\theta _i \hat{n}_i}=\delta _{ij}e^{i\theta _i} c_j^\dagger +(1-\delta _{ij})c_j^\dagger$, and hence $H'=UHU^{-1}$ with $U=\prod _ie^{i\theta _i\hat{n}_i}$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

For constant $t_{ij}$, the transformation may be considered as a simple redifinition of the quantum state basis.

A natural basis for you quantum states are the $|\psi_j \rangle = c_j^+|0\rangle$. In this basis, you have : $H|\psi_j \rangle = t_{ij}|\psi_i \rangle$, so this means that $H_{ij}=t_{ij}$, so we may write $H = \sum H_{ij}~ c^+_i c_j $.

Now, we may decide to change the basis $|\psi' \rangle = U |\psi \rangle$, with $U = Diag (e^{i\theta_1},e^{i\theta_2}, ....e^{i\theta_n})$, so that $|\psi_j \rangle \to |\psi'_j \rangle = e^{i\theta_j} |\psi_j \rangle$. The matrix $U$ is unitary, and it transforms an orthonormal basis into an other orthonormal basis.

In this new basis, the hamiltonian is simply $H' = U H U^{-1}$, or expressing the elements of the operator $H'$, we get : $H'_{ij} = e^{i\theta_i} H_{ij}e^{-i\theta_j} $

As you know, multiplying a quantum basis state $|\psi_j \rangle$ by a unit phase $e^{i\theta_j}$ does not change the physical state (which is $|\psi_j \rangle \langle|\psi_j| $), so the physics described by $H$ and $H'$ is the same, the eigenvalues $E_k$ of $H$ and $H'$ are the same, etc...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Trimok
answered Oct 9, 2013 by Trimok (950 points) [ no revision ]
@ Trimok Thanks for your comment. By the way, I think only the global phase is un physical, while the relative phase(here is the local $U(1)$ transformation) is physical.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user K-boy
To be fair, I consider only global transformations in my answer (with constants $t_{ij}$), so I realize it does not answer the question... The local $U(1)$ invariance is not really "physical". The $U(1)$ invariance of the EM field is a mathematical redundancy, not a true symmetry. This means that we overcount the total number of states, that is that one physical state is represented by many mathematical states, and it is necessary to reduce this number, to keep only one representant for one physical state.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 08:41 (UCT), posted by SE-user Trimok

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverf$\varnothing$ow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...